5 ms·

The two arguments do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. You can have governance without monopoly. This would be the ideal scenario. Governments ope

The two arguments do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. You can have governance without monopoly. This would be the ideal scenario. Governments operate federal parks, but there are also private parks which are just as well kept, sometimes even better - and they do it at much lower costs. See for example, this small public bathroom which cost $2M to build: https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1077921975123804162 https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1077921975123804162 Such enormous waste of resources is so common in many areas of government, and if they operated like any regular business they would be bankrupt overnight. Of course it did not take $2M to build that little shack - there is a huge amount of corruption and everyone involved is taking their slice of the taxpayer's money.

JamesBarney 8y ago
I think it really did take 2 million dollars. The video explains why. We have decided to make a lot of trade offs when doing government infrastructure work that makes it really expensive. But this isn't government in general, it's American government specifically that is really inefficient at building things. In Texas I've been to over ten government run parks (like ones you'd go camping in), and I've never even heard of a private one.
- sparkie 8y ago
  If given the option for a $2M toilet where "the locals are engaged", and takes 4 years to build, or a $300k toilet which is built in 6 months, which do you think most people would opt for? The real problem is government is too damn big that it becomes impossible to separate out such concerns from every other aspect of government, and each time government expands, it adds more inefficiencies. A park should be a self-contained enterprise so that it doesn't need outside government spending. If you take for example, Shinjuku Gyoen in Tokyo, you need to pay 100 yen to enter the park. The park gets millions of visitors a year, and the money it takes can easily pay for the upkeep of the park. It could be completely private, but in this particular case it is inherited from the imperial estate and is run by the government. The fee has the additional advantage that it keeps out vandals and thugs - only people who want to enjoy the park will pay for it. Highways in Japan are mostly toll roads too. They're operated as companies with the intent on making profit. Some are privately owned, although most are government owned. The "who will build the roads?" complaint is one of the most common attempts to retort the argument for small government.
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    > If given the option for a $2M toilet where "the locals are engaged", and takes 4 years to build, or a $300k toilet which is built in 6 months, which do you think most people would opt for? You and I both know this is not the cause of a 86% of expenditures. > The real problem is government is too damn big that it becomes impossible to separate out such concerns from every other aspect of government, and each time government expands, it adds more inefficiencies. Do you mean too damn big by % of gdp? If so we could double the size of social security and not change the costs of infrastructure. Do you mean too damn big by employment? If so during census years infrastructure costs don't change much. If you mean by number of regulations? I think reducing regulations could definitely decrease the cost of infrastructure, but this isn't what most people mean when they talk about the size of government. Texas is a very conservative state with little welfare, not very many services provided by the government, but we have an enormous amount of regulations. An incredible amount of red tape and laws.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      > You and I both know this is not the cause of a 86% of expenditures. This is missing my point. The point is that if it were a private development, then they would be sacked and replaced. This isn't some isolated case and many areas of government are similarly ineffective. The problem is that you can't just replace the one area - the government isn't modular enough to fix its individual parts - it's a monolith. When I say the government is too big - it's trying to do too many things, and does most of them badly. Markets are better at selecting for efficiency than a single centralized entity. Each 'ministry' or whatnot should be a distinct entity, and should operate like a for-profit business. If one ministry is performing poorly, it could be replaced with a different company in a free market. The threat that they could lose such a contract would force them to perform. No performance, no job - like the rest of us. To be clear, I'm not for "no government," but for very limited government and little regulation. Governments should not be interfering in markets for instance. Things like environmental regulations are obviously more complex issues which require people to come together for solutions rather than competing. Another example of a more free market is the education system in Sweden. Instead of funding people to go to the nearest public school to them, they give vouchers for education which are redeemable at any school, private or public, and children can choose. There are no restrictions on location. Because private schooling is almost always better than public schooling, this system has caused the public schools to improve out of necessity - they're competing for children to get the funding - in turn the private schools need to innovate to retain their edge. The result is an overall improvement of the entire education of the country, and reduced government spending.

JamesBarney 8y ago

I think it really did take 2 million dollars. The video explains why. We have decided to make a lot of trade offs when doing government infrastructure work that makes it really expensive. But this isn't government in general, it's American government specifically that is really inefficient at building things. In Texas I've been to over ten government run parks (like ones you'd go camping in), and I've never even heard of a private one.

sparkie 8y ago
If given the option for a $2M toilet where "the locals are engaged", and takes 4 years to build, or a $300k toilet which is built in 6 months, which do you think most people would opt for? The real problem is government is too damn big that it becomes impossible to separate out such concerns from every other aspect of government, and each time government expands, it adds more inefficiencies. A park should be a self-contained enterprise so that it doesn't need outside government spending. If you take for example, Shinjuku Gyoen in Tokyo, you need to pay 100 yen to enter the park. The park gets millions of visitors a year, and the money it takes can easily pay for the upkeep of the park. It could be completely private, but in this particular case it is inherited from the imperial estate and is run by the government. The fee has the additional advantage that it keeps out vandals and thugs - only people who want to enjoy the park will pay for it. Highways in Japan are mostly toll roads too. They're operated as companies with the intent on making profit. Some are privately owned, although most are government owned. The "who will build the roads?" complaint is one of the most common attempts to retort the argument for small government.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  > If given the option for a $2M toilet where "the locals are engaged", and takes 4 years to build, or a $300k toilet which is built in 6 months, which do you think most people would opt for? You and I both know this is not the cause of a 86% of expenditures. > The real problem is government is too damn big that it becomes impossible to separate out such concerns from every other aspect of government, and each time government expands, it adds more inefficiencies. Do you mean too damn big by % of gdp? If so we could double the size of social security and not change the costs of infrastructure. Do you mean too damn big by employment? If so during census years infrastructure costs don't change much. If you mean by number of regulations? I think reducing regulations could definitely decrease the cost of infrastructure, but this isn't what most people mean when they talk about the size of government. Texas is a very conservative state with little welfare, not very many services provided by the government, but we have an enormous amount of regulations. An incredible amount of red tape and laws.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    > You and I both know this is not the cause of a 86% of expenditures. This is missing my point. The point is that if it were a private development, then they would be sacked and replaced. This isn't some isolated case and many areas of government are similarly ineffective. The problem is that you can't just replace the one area - the government isn't modular enough to fix its individual parts - it's a monolith. When I say the government is too big - it's trying to do too many things, and does most of them badly. Markets are better at selecting for efficiency than a single centralized entity. Each 'ministry' or whatnot should be a distinct entity, and should operate like a for-profit business. If one ministry is performing poorly, it could be replaced with a different company in a free market. The threat that they could lose such a contract would force them to perform. No performance, no job - like the rest of us. To be clear, I'm not for "no government," but for very limited government and little regulation. Governments should not be interfering in markets for instance. Things like environmental regulations are obviously more complex issues which require people to come together for solutions rather than competing. Another example of a more free market is the education system in Sweden. Instead of funding people to go to the nearest public school to them, they give vouchers for education which are redeemable at any school, private or public, and children can choose. There are no restrictions on location. Because private schooling is almost always better than public schooling, this system has caused the public schools to improve out of necessity - they're competing for children to get the funding - in turn the private schools need to innovate to retain their edge. The result is an overall improvement of the entire education of the country, and reduced government spending.